For the last couple months I have been left speechless (sort of ... lol) about the decisions that China has been making that have international ramifications. Personally, I don't understand how China can continue to make poor decisions that deteriorate its international image.
The short and probably incomplete list of poor decisions that come to mind are:
1. Blocking effective action from taking place in the crisis in Darfur because of the oil connections China has with Khartoum.
2. The over-excessive response to the Tibetan protesters in Lhasa.
3. Selling arms to Robert Mugabe's abusive ZANU-PF in the period leading up to the presidential elections. Arms that were probably used to oppress MDC supporters.
4. Blocking UN sanctions against the fraudulent Mugabe regime.
5. It's extensive military buildup including the ballistic missile capabilities on their new submarines.
6. It's lack of cooperation in fulfilling its Olympic promises to better its human rights record and to increase internet acess and openness for its citizens.
7. Taking action to prevent the ICC from taking action against the Sudanese president who is accused of crimes against humanity.
In the global arena, China is active in trading its products and finding ample sources of oil abroad. It cannot afford to make itself so unpopular based on its oppressive and ill-advised foreign policy choices. It is unlikely that China will be able to support its population if it only befriends the "rogue" or oppressive regimes. China needs to be able to endear itself to other democracies and the best way to do that is to show a sincere concern for human rights and to pursue good policies in that area.
It just appears that China is creating a negative image for itself and one that is likely impact China's future foreign successes. This image is driven by the deliberate yet senseless negative policies of the Chinese government. I realize China has always been a bit different in its political philosophies but it's about time it took a step back and evaluated the impression it is giving in its policy decisions.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Cold War Memories
I realize I wasn't really around for the Cold War, I was born in the mid 80's so technically I was alive for the last couple years but I was a toddler so that doesn't really count. That said, I have become a big fan of studying Cold War history and politics and I am beginning to see some things in the news that lead me to think that the United States and Russia are tangled in a Cold War-styled struggle right now in international relations.
There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.
Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.
The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).
Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.
Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.
These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.
The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!
This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.
- blenCOWe
There are the little disputes between the two powers over topics like certain independence movements (Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc.), arctic sovereignty and UN Security Council sanctions for Zimbabwe. These are not really devastating to US-Russian diplomacy, but it still adds to the tension between the two.
Then last week Russia announced the possible deployment of some of its strategic bombers in Cuba. This re-surfaced memories of the crisis surrounding Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. Cuba is notoriously anti-American and it doesn't matter that Fidel Castro has retired because the person now in charge is his brother Raul. These bombers would easily be able to reach targets in the United States (Florida is 90 miles away) and are intended to be a Russian response to the United State's move to introduce a missile shield in central Europe.
The missile shield is intended to be a defense against terrorism and rogue states not as a move against the Russia Federation. The missiles would be located in NATO member states and as of the last time that I checked Russia and NATO are not at war with each other. Like the missiles did 46 years ago, the strategic bombers and their placement in an opponent's backyard poses a credible threat to the United States security. If a situation of war was to arise, the bombers create a risk of attack that the homeland of the United States is unused to (one of the reasons 9/11 was so profound in its impact on US security).
Russia's move to re-introduce a Russian threat to US homeland security is an intentional threat to the US. Following the 1962 crisis, President Kennedy pledged that the United States would never invade Cuba. This means that Cuba has no need to defend itself against the US and thus would not need the added arsenal. In addition, in the months since the retirement of Fidel Castro, US tension towards Cuba has softened a bit, thus making the escalation poorly timed.
Adding more fuel to the fire, today it was reported that Russia will be selling $2 billion worth of arms to Venezuela at the request of, US opponent and president,Hugo Chavez. The deal includes the sale of submarines and the necessary equipment for missile defense systems. This is the latest of deals that Chavez and Russia have had, which have already totaled $4 billion. This presents a possible threat to the US because Hugo Chavez is quite possibly the biggest and loudest opponent of George W. Bush and the United States of America that currently exists.
These latest moves are of strategic concern because it would appear that Russia is building alliances with those states that can be classified as the enemies of the United States. Russia is uniting together a new sphere of influence targeted against the United States. This time, however, it is not communism that binds its members but their opposition to the United States of America. This reality is potentially more dangerous than the previous one because the target is not just the economic system or infrastructure but the citizens and culture of the United States. Dangerous means costly and the price that would be paid would be the lives of innocent American civilians.
The chance for a new conflict, especially one in the western hemisphere, is troubling but the worst part about it is the escalation factor that would be involved. If something were to happen, the alliances and partnerships that exist in this hemisphere would likely bring the entire hemisphere to war. Add in NATO and Russia and this regional conflict now spreads out across the world. Welcome to World War 3!
This all stinks like the many little proxy disputes the littered the Cold War era. As a citizen of a western hemisphere nation, this growing situation and the chance for escalation worries me. The world need not return to the shadow of a war between great powers. Small scale conflicts are giving everyone enough trouble as is, in this case bigger is not better.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Final Push for Peace?
I fully appreciate the gravity of the United States sending William Burns to the nuclear talks with Iran but it seems to me that a lot of the recent discussion on the subject might be a little over-ambitious.
In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.
These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.
For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.
Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.
In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.
- blenCOWe
In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.
These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.
For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.
Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.
In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.
- blenCOWe
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
In-and-Out Bitterness
I'm beginning to think that the resulting furor from the opposition over the supposed in-and-out scandal is getting out of hand.
Realistically, what have the Conservatives really done? They found a way to get as much out of their election financing as they could. It wasn't something completely new, they just used it more than it had been in the past. There was no conscious attempt to break election law; the Tories acted within the exact wording of the law.
So why the furor?
This is just another example of the Liberal Party's greater focus on trying to distract Canadians with delusions of scandal and corruption rather than positive policy discussion... kind of like the last government... a Liberal government!
The Liberals are just sore that the Conservatives have shown themselves to be able to play the "politics" game better than they do. This is quite a blow for the "natural governing party!
Before the witch hunt torches are further lit, let's just think about what the responsible and constructive solution to this problem might be. If this type of financial practice is no longer desirable then why not just reform electoral law to say as much. Address the framework that has allowed this so that it doesn't happen again. This will do much more to prevent future scandal than the Liberals current smear campaign in the media.
You know, the funny thing about witch hunts: they were usually fed by propaganda and misinformation and its not like they stopped witchcraft.
- blenCOWe
Realistically, what have the Conservatives really done? They found a way to get as much out of their election financing as they could. It wasn't something completely new, they just used it more than it had been in the past. There was no conscious attempt to break election law; the Tories acted within the exact wording of the law.
So why the furor?
This is just another example of the Liberal Party's greater focus on trying to distract Canadians with delusions of scandal and corruption rather than positive policy discussion... kind of like the last government... a Liberal government!
The Liberals are just sore that the Conservatives have shown themselves to be able to play the "politics" game better than they do. This is quite a blow for the "natural governing party!
Before the witch hunt torches are further lit, let's just think about what the responsible and constructive solution to this problem might be. If this type of financial practice is no longer desirable then why not just reform electoral law to say as much. Address the framework that has allowed this so that it doesn't happen again. This will do much more to prevent future scandal than the Liberals current smear campaign in the media.
You know, the funny thing about witch hunts: they were usually fed by propaganda and misinformation and its not like they stopped witchcraft.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Big Step for Kosovo
Kosovo's succession gained another supporter today when the International Monetary Fund recognized its separation from Serbia and will now go through the membership application process.
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
The IMF has been the first international institution to recognize the newly independent state but actual membership is no certain thing. Apparently Russia and Serbia are still sore over the independence movement and will attempt to block Kosovo's membership application.
Unfortunately for Russia and Serbia, money matters in the IMF and the United States contributes more SDR's (special drawing rights) than both of them combined. This is important because in the IMF the more money you contribute, the more votes you wield. This gives the United States, who backs the succession of Kosovo, a better chance to ensure IMF membership for Kosovo than Russia and Serbia have to block it.
Money speaks again!
- blenCOWe
Bad Tactics
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has come out and proposed recently that the tactics that the United States has employed in Iraq should be applied to battle the insurgency in Afghanistan. These tactics would include increasing the number of deployments of US forces in Afghanistan.
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."
Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.
Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.
"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "
If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.
If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.
Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Whose Victory is it?
A victory over racism? Not quite!
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
The defeat, by veto, of the recent UN Security Council resolution concerning Zimbabwe is being praised by Robert Mugabe and his fraudulent government as "a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs."
This was not a victory over racism, it was a victory over democracy and the rule of law. What has happened here is that a precedent has been set that authoritarian governments who abuse their power to maintain their position. In the future, dictators will be able to look back and point to this situation and use it to justify their actions.
What is really ignorant in this situation is the tone that Zimbabwean officials have taken towards the international community. For example, the Information Minister Skihanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters that,
"We are very happy with the turn of events and would like to thank those who helped defeat international racism disguised as multilateral action at the U.N."
This was not a random move or an act of spite. This resolution was a show by the majority of the members of the Security Council (who are elected by the international community) to condemn the manner in which Mugabe has retained power.
And those members of the Council who helped to bring down the resolution, what was their reason? They claimed that,
"imposing sanctions would indeed have impacted negatively on the current dialogue process among Zimbabwe political parties."
That seems like a responsible answer but one that doesn't reflect the current realities of the situation. These talks, that Russia, China and South Africa were afraid of damaging, are virtually non-existent as of right now.
Reuters is reporting that, "President Robert Mugabe's party and the opposition failed last week to agree to a framework for talks to end Zimbabwe's crisis." Without even a framework in place, how can these three nations believe that taking action against the Mugabe government would negatively influence the talks when the two parties cannot even agree to the manner in which the two sides will come together.
In the end, these members are using the talks as a shield from their unwillingness to take a stand against the ongoing attrocities.
This was a victory for Mugabe and Mugabe alone and has nothing to do with racism or influencing the peace talks.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
